Your driver's license should be immediately and permanently revoked after your first car "accident". There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever you should be putting your foot on the pedal or driving in traffic if you don't have a crystal clear driving path, much less if you can't even clearly avoid a car accident, amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thank you, amiwhite. What is it with people and their expectations of perfection? This country has many more deaths that are car related than hunting related. You don't see massive crowds gathering demanding reform for the standards at which a driver's license is obtained, do you? No, of course not. Albeit, I would really prefer for the standards at which you obtain one to be improved and made more comprehensive and specific. There will always be circumstances that you are not in control of and bad judgment calls will be made.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

he was just using OP's logic. and i agree with him (commenter), not that they should permanently revoke the driver of his 'permission' to drive, but that the consequence to an accident would be to rash and extreme, for lack of better word. And also, because the casualties in car accidents are more severe and profound than hunting accidents, it would be more ideal for the consequences to be worse, again, for car accidents than hunting accident

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Hmm. You have a good point, but I disagree with this as being the same thing. I must admit I have a bit of a personal vendetta as every hunting season, there are hunters in the woods right behind my house, so it makes it dangerous to walk in the beautiful woods I should damn well be able to enjoy without worrying about such stupidity. Now back to the point at hand. True, there are indeed many offenses where the driver's stupidity very much made it NOT an accident (e.g. ignoring stop signs/lights, texting, eating, applying makeup while driving) and those very well SHOULD be punished far harsher than they are. Those incidents, I agree, should However, many car accidents happen due to people failing to react to situations that aren't always foreseeable or controllable. A hunting "accident" is no such thing. The hunter needs to make a conscious decision to fire upon an unidentified target. This, I feel, pushes the action into an area where it just can't possibly be considered an accident and the person proves they're completely unable to handle the responsibility their license provides.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

having poor aim? Maybe a hunter should have to prove that they are capable of consistently hitting the target before they are given a license? Then again, I don't hunt, so I don't know how hunting licenses work.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There is an incredible difference between poor aim (which should bar you from getting a license in the first place) and firing at a human or a hunting dog just because you thought, "Ooh! Something moving! *fire*"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree, there should be consequences. But I think It should be something similar to the 6 month to a full year for your first dwi offense we have here. I'm not saying 6 months exactly for yje hunting one, but there should be something similar.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Eh, perhaps you're right. Permanently may be a bit much. Perhaps like you said, around a year and only after you've taken many hours of classes on how to do it properly should your license be restored. However, if it happens a second time, permanently seems like a more reasonable option then.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am only agreeing because I despise hunting as an activity.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There are pros and cons to it. It can help control the population of an invasive species, but it could lead to the mindset of hunting for sport, which is not in the best interest of nature.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

At least not permanently

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Agree. I'm a firm believer in second chances.

by Anonymous 11 years ago